BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, natty_dread defends capitalism and freedom of choice against AoG's rage against people's decisions to sell advertisement space on a sports uniform.

natty_dread's simply commenting on AoG's "religious attitude" regarding the "sanctity of sports teams" (and especially their holy garments, a.k.a. uniforms). From my interpretation, natty_dread is implying that such a stance is irrational, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

If it's not a "religious" reaction against capitalism, then what is it? In other words, why is it wrong for owners of soccer teams to sell advertising space on the team's uniforms?

- natty defending capitalism. you should be able to see what's unusual about that.- if sports is a "religion" in america, then atheism is a "religion" everywhere.- it IS rather strange to see the name of a company on a uniform, which is usually used to identify the player for the viewers.- aog is dumb too but we all already knew that.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

john9blue wrote:- natty defending capitalism. you should be able to see what's unusual about that.

Argue with the point, not with the person, John.

But then again, I've noticed that's a thing you do. You can't separate arguments from the persons making them. You have some weird issues against me, so you'll disagree with me even if I argue that fish live in water.

john9blue wrote:- if sports is a "religion" in america, then atheism is a "religion" everywhere.

Does not follow. Logical leap. Also irrelevant to the subject at hand.

john9blue wrote:- it IS rather strange to see the name of a company on a uniform, which is usually used to identify the player for the viewers.

Appeal to ridicule. You only see it as strange because it's something you're not culturally familiar with.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's their teams, they reserve the right, and they need the money to maintain the profitability of the soccer team (which ain't cheap, dawg).

I agree. That's why I'm not passing legislation disallowing them to do it.

The reason why I dislike it is because it's not aesthetically nor intellectually pleasing. The logos do a poor job at blending in with the uniforms and I very much dislike how a third party corporation insists on advertising in such a way.

I don't see why you think my disdain for such a thing is irrational. It's not like I say it's irrational for you to not like a certain painting or a musical artist.

What is irrational, however, is comparing religion to sports in the United States. Essentially, if you're saying that that comparison is ok, then if I was to object Microsoft from putting its logo on Stonehenge, apparently I am now a follower of the religion "ancient monuments". My, or most Americans, love of sports has no resemblances of popular religions. You can interpret whatever you want from American sports to symbolize a concept from religion, but honestly I would rather you just not jerk off.

john9blue wrote:- natty defending capitalism. you should be able to see what's unusual about that.

Argue with the point, not with the person, John.

But then again, I've noticed that's a thing you do. You can't separate arguments from the persons making them. You have some weird issues against me, so you'll disagree with me even if I argue that fish live in water.

john9blue wrote:- if sports is a "religion" in america, then atheism is a "religion" everywhere.

Does not follow. Logical leap. Also irrelevant to the subject at hand.

john9blue wrote:- it IS rather strange to see the name of a company on a uniform, which is usually used to identify the player for the viewers.

Appeal to ridicule. You only see it as strange because it's something you're not culturally familiar with.

john9blue wrote:- aog is dumb too but we all already knew that.

Lay off AoG. He can't help being special.

Is there a logical fallacy that has to do with someone dismissing an argument because they believe there's a logical fallacy within the argument?

AoG wrote:My, or most Americans, love of sports has no resemblances of popular religions. You can interpret whatever you want from American sports to symbolize a concept from religion, but honestly I would rather you just not jerk off.

I dunno... I've seen fights break out between U of O and Oregon State fans during Civil War week.

AoG wrote:My, or most Americans, love of sports has no resemblances of popular religions. You can interpret whatever you want from American sports to symbolize a concept from religion, but honestly I would rather you just not jerk off.

I dunno... I've seen fights break out between U of O and Oregon State fans during Civil War week.

Games are on Sundays...

People wear the jerseys...

....trololol....

-TG

>only NFL games

Natty specifically singled out hockey earlier in the thread. I'm not sure why, because of the four main sports, hockey is dead last.

The Almighty, Wikipedia, wrote:Appeal to ridicule, also called appeal to mockery, the Horse Laugh,[1] or reductio ad ridiculum (Latin: "reduction to the ridiculous"), is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.

john in no way made your argument look ridiculous. Maybe he committed another fallacy, but not Appeal to Ridicule.

Army of GOD wrote:Sausages. Tons and tons of sausages. They haunt my dreams every night, dripping with grease, looming menacingly. They threaten to drown me in ketchup. I wake up drenched in sweat in the middle of the night and make myself comfort bacon to ease my shattered nerves.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's their teams, they reserve the right, and they need the money to maintain the profitability of the soccer team (which ain't cheap, dawg).

I agree. That's why I'm not passing legislation disallowing them to do it.

The reason why I dislike it is because it's not aesthetically nor intellectually pleasing. The logos do a poor job at blending in with the uniforms and I very much dislike how a third party corporation insists on advertising in such a way.

I don't see why you think my disdain for such a thing is irrational. It's not like I say it's irrational for you to not like a certain painting or a musical artist.

What is irrational, however, is comparing religion to sports in the United States. Essentially, if you're saying that that comparison is ok, then if I was to object Microsoft from putting its logo on Stonehenge, apparently I am now a follower of the religion "ancient monuments". My, or most Americans, love of sports has no resemblances of popular religions. You can interpret whatever you want from American sports to symbolize a concept from religion, but honestly I would rather you just not jerk off.

Ohhhh, this is a B&M session on the ickyness of advertisements on soccer uniforms!

I mean, sure, it's not aesthetically/intellectually pleasing to you, because "appeal to emotions." There's nothing wrong with that, nor does it really lead anywhere, but that's not all that you said...

What's with this "sell out" mentality?

"-the fact that soccer teams think it's cool to sell out by having company logos on their uniforms."

So, if the logos weren't on uniforms, they wouldn't be sell-outs? Or does receiving funds from a corporation make one a sell-out? Where do you draw the line?